United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
PAUL F. MILLER PLAINTIFF
AT&T doing business as Southwestern Bell Telephone Company; AT&T doing business as DirecTV, LLC; JAMS; and RANDALLS DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
BARRY A. BRYANT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is the Opposition to Plaintiff's Application to
Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion of Defendants
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T
(“AT&T”); DirecTV, LLC
(“DirecTV”); and Randall Stephenson
(“Randall”) (collectively, “Separate
Defendants”) to Confirm Arbitration Award. ECF No. 8.
Plaintiff has filed a response to this Motion. ECF No. 15.
Separate Defendants have replied. ECF No. 23.
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)
(2009), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey referred this Motion to
this Court for the purpose of making a report and
recommendation. In accordance with that referral, this Court
enters the following report and recommendation.
January 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action seeking to
vacate an Arbitration Award entered against him. ECF No. 1.
Specifically, this Arbitration Award, entered on January 10,
2018, provided as follows:
1. Claimant Paul F. Miller did not prevail on any of
his claims, and all of his claims asserted herein are hereby
dismissed with prejudice.
2. Respondents are entitled to an award of sanctions
against Claimant in the amount of $250, payable to
Respondents by Claimant Paul F. Miller.
3. Except as otherwise awarded herein, all parties
shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.
ECF No. 1-2.
claims the Arbitration Award should be vacated because the
arbitrator's or Defendant JAMS's “refusal to
arbitrate the fraudulent billings, refusal to allow
discoverable evidence of its cause, her concealment from
responsible authority of the losses and unjustified delay in
light of the continuing victimization of millions is evident
partiality and bias.” ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff also
claims JAMS decided issues outside the scope of the
arbitration clause. Id.
response, Separate Defendants claim the Arbitration Award
should be confirmed because there is no basis for vacating
it. ECF No. 15. Specifically, Separate Defendants argue
Plaintiff has already had his claims fully adjudicated, and
there is no basis for vacating the Arbitration Award.
addressing a motion to compel arbitration, courts generally
apply a two-part test: “(1) whether there is a valid
arbitration agreement and (2) whether the particular dispute
falls within the terms of that agreement.” E.E.O.C.
v. Woodmen of World Life Ins. Soc., 479 F.3d 561, 565
(8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Faber v. Menard, Inc., 367
F.3d 1048, 1052 (8th Cir. 2004)). While, the Federal
Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs the
enforceability of the Arbitration Agreement in this case,
“[t]he validity of the agreement is determined by state
contract law.” Id.
Arkansas law, the essential elements of a contract or an
agreement are: (1) competent parties, (2) subject matter, (3)
legal consideration, (4) mutual obligations, and (5) mutual
agreement. Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. ...